Should the GRA be repealed ...

It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where organisations purporting to support trans people, are actually making sure they continue to profit from them.

Indeed. It's the ultimate capitalism.

Yes Al1Langdownthecleghole

Given the fragile mental health of a lot of trans people, as recently evidenced by the howls of rage and pain after J. K. Rowling said sex was real, it would be wonderful if places like mermaids, Stonewall, GIRES, etc, gave their money to research into gender dysphoria.

That is, apparently, a very transphobic point of view. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where organisations purporting to support trans people, are actually making sure they continue to profit from them.

Sometimes I think it would be much better if gender was legally separate from sex.

Freddy McConnell has proven that it’s legislation that means nothing: to be given a GRC, commit to “living as a man” until death, then immediately getting pregnant and having a baby, the most female thing possible.

We do need a clear and unequivocal definition of what it is to 'live as a man', and what a woman has to do to show she is living as a man. Similarly for a man who claims to be 'living as a woman'.

Yeah I think tis redundant now anyway. It was only brought in as same sex marriage was illegal, and for equal pension age.

Those who already have one though, obviously keep it. Just no more from now on. No reason for them these days..and its about 500k people now, rather than 5k.

Yes, but I would like to see better support and treatment for people with gender dysphoria and other mental health concerns.

Which given current lack of funding of mental health services is sadly unlikely. MH provision is already cinderella a service and that situation is likely to deteriorate as the economy tanks and the government has to be seen to invest - or at least make headlines - about funding for the Acute sector and Care Homes.

As this is the feminism board we rightly centre women, but I think it is true that Transpeople are a vulnerable group. Not necessarily at risk of assault and murder as TRAs claim, but there are often other concerns.

Nearly all of the Transpeople I have met have had complex lives, with difficult and often traumatic childhoods, they give histories of fragile mental health during adolescence and have poor mental health into adulthood. I have been involved with adults who want "just one more procedure" to make their lives perfect and I have known their expectations won't be met. Then there are those who are lonely in later life with poor health, people for whom it is difficult to find a partner to have a long term relationship with, and yes they are vulnerable to DV and exploitation.

So yes, I want the GRA revoked to reclaim the rights of women, but I would also like to stop the merry-go-round that does so much damage to the very people clueless, noisy activists claim to want to help. People can't change sex and it is transpeople who suffer the most as a result of that fiction.

Why does anyone need a certificate in order to wear certain clothes or asked to be addressed by certain pronouns?

Why should certificates be issued to people which require compelled speech from other people?

But what is the point of that? If sex segregation is to be upheld on the basis of actual sex, it just means pronouns and clothes.

Why does anyone need a certificate in order to wear certain clothes or asked to be addressed by certain pronouns?

@Datun Thank you. Nail. Head. As always

Yes should be repealed and the Equality Act tweaked. Trans rights would be protected under beliefs and disability (sex dysphoria)

Criminal record, including sexual assault and abuse of of females, is also no barrier to gaining a GRC.

Freddy McConnell has proven that it’s legislation that means nothing: to be given a GRC, commit to “living as a man” until death, then immediately getting pregnant and having a baby, the most female thing possible. The fact that Freddy had these intentions, was given a GRC, and has been allowed to continue with impunity, shows that either

a) the legislation is meaningless and/or
b) the legislation is unenforceable

What’s the point of it then?

It's important to look at the purpose of the law.

It was not a validation of identity; it was allowing a very small group of people (5000 were predicted and the uptake was near exactly that over 16 years) to have the legal fiction of the other sex in order to have equality in rights of marriage and pensions.

That was it. It was never intended to do any other job.

It's been radically repurposed. In the meantime, every possible concern raised (viewable in Hansard) about the impact to the female sex has happened, with a whole lot more than the MPs and HoL ever foresaw.

It would be very easy to have a legal recognition of TW/TM/NB status and chosen name, without it providing a legal fiction of sex having changed in a way that sacrifices what sex means or the right of female people to any provisions where males are not.

A GRC should go alongside the original BC and states that this individual lives as a member of the opppsite sex

But what is the point of that? If sex segregation is to be upheld on the basis of actual sex, it just means pronouns and clothes.

Why does anyone need a certificate in order to wear certain clothes or asked to be addressed by certain pronouns?

only 5000 have a GRC

Not all of those 5000 are MfF either.

I think it is the issuing of a new birth certificate is the main issue rather than the GRC itself. Effectively the state is issuing false documentation and encouraging all the nonsense about changing sex. It muddies the water between sex and gender. A GRC should go alongside the original BC and states that this individual lives as a member of the opppsite sex but is not a member of the opposite sex for purposes of sex based protections. This is the reality of the situation.

Yes.

I have changed my position on the GRA since learning that a man does not need to have surgery to change his birth certificate, and there are people who support the right of a convicted sex offender to be placed in a woman's prison, just on his declaration that he feels like a woman.
I assumed a GRC would never be available to a convicted offender.

Society has changed, gay marriage is legal now. The GRA just looks outdated and homophobic.

There are apparently half a million trans people living here, and only 5000 have a GRC. That number has remained static since the beginning. (And they could easily be grandfathered in.)

No one else has seen fit to get a certificate. I suspect that is because they thought they could implement self ID as a protocol, rather than a law. The government has just told them they can't. Does that mean that many more are going to apply for a GRC, in order to gain the access that the government is trying to prevent?

Or are we still happy to have a law that falsifies documents, is underpinned by rank sexism, damages women, and is obsolete on the basis that the reasons it was implemented are gone, just for 5000 people?

None of it makes sense.

What is a transphobe???

Define it.

What are the plusses for female people following 16 years of male people being able to gain a legal fiction of being female with access to female spaces? How has that experiment (created solely to avoid gay marriage) gone?

I can tell you about the losses for females. I can tell you pages of losses for females.

This is not always and only about male people . Female people are allowed to talk about things in terms by which they affect female people, the first rule does not have to be keeping people born male happy and catered for and assured that females only want to talk about their needs a very little bit after making sure no male born people have any needs that should be met first.

The very first line of the GRA is horribly transphobic and exclusionary of non-binary people:

A person of either gender who is aged at least 18 may make an application for a gender recognition certificate on the basis of—(a) living in the other gender,

What about all the other genders? What about people who don’t feel like they have a gender?

TRAs should be railing against such binary language and wanting it changed too.

Yes, it's obsolete, Orwellian and falsifies legal documents.

Go ahead, prove every TRA activist "right" by "confirming" that we're all transphobes. Wouldn't want to waste the opportunity of finally being listened to would we?

You know what's not helpful? Vague handwringing about 'transphobia'.
The GRA affects women, and we are allowed to discuss it.

A correction to my earlier post about Goodwin v UK. The breach of article 12 was about the right to marry. Article 8 concerns the right of a person born male, who 'passes' as female to hide their true sex from everyone.

Full details here

Oh, and ..... yes, it should!

That would affect a good number of people who've lived quiet lives as women to no ill effect.

Not true! The only people who've lived lives, quiet or otherwise, as women are ..... WOMEN.

Go ahead, prove every TRA activist "right" by "confirming" that we're all transphobes. Wouldn't want to waste the opportunity of finally being listened to would we?

What specifically is tranphobic about suggesting it's repealed? There is no part of it that benefits women. Quite the reverse.